Atonement, Protestants please respond

[DeSales111]

Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you.

You’re welcome.
One more blog I found. The blogger lists the different approaches to the atonement. It is very brief.

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

 

[DeSales111]

Thanks again, a good read that is to the point without having to read a full book. Very nice summaries.

I like to believe it is a combination of the Moral Influence theory and the Christus Victory theory. Christ does say “If anyone would come after me, let him take up his cross and follow me." In all four Gospels the Passion of Christ has the same tone, that is, Christ denying Himself and setting the example. He shows what true love is and never waivers from forgiveness. He loved and forgave them all, even those who humiliated and tortured Him. There can be no doubt He was showing the way for all of us, thus the Moral Influence Theory.

And what happens? Conversions and people saying “Truly this was the Son of God.” Even before He rose from the dead He was converting people by His innocence and His examples of love and forgiveness. Thus the Christus Victory theory.

What i do not see in any of the four Gospels concerning the Passion of Christ is any hint of the wrath of God. ALL of His pain and suffering was the result of sin trying to defeat true justice, true love, true compassion, and true mercy. But Christ was the Victor, by defeating sin He defeated death, eternal life was merited for us, IF we pick up our own Cross and follow Him. Even after His death and resurrection He never mentions a word about His Father’s wrath being satisfied, or that He was any kind of substitute for us.

The Penal Substitution theory (to me any way) makes it seem as though God is a God acting on emotions in order to be satisfied. He doesn’t need to be “paid” anything because He already owns everything. It makes me cringe when ever I hear “Jesus paid the price so we don’t have to.”

 

[charsan]

I’ve heard it said by some Protestants, even a very close friend, that God poured out His wrath on Christ to make atonement for our sins.

I am no theologian, but this just seems absurd. How can that be love, how can that be merciful, and how could that be just?

To put this into perspective I thought about how I’m a father with a son. If my neighbors sinned against me, and I’m angry, should I torture my innocent son just to satisfy my wrath? If my son is innocent (and Jesus was and is), then it would be a sin for me to act out in violence against him when he has done nothing wrong.

I just can’t imagine such an injustice, that to me goes against everything I believe about the relationship between God the Father and His only Son Jesus Christ. I can never believe the source and author of love could ever act in such as way.

I must say I quite agree with you. My view of Atonement is quite rare in western Christianity, it is know as the recapitulation theory of the atonement and here is a good summary of it:

In the recapitulation view of the atonement, Christ is seen as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed. Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life (including moral perfection).

 

[CelticWarlord]

that God poured out His wrath on Christ to make atonement for our sins.

It’s not widely known among Protestants or Catholics that the idea of penal substitution was not formulated until Anselm of Canterbury wrote on the topic in 1098. It had been only one of many theories circulating regarding the meaning of Jesus’ death, but for over a thousand years it was not a formal teaching. There is a good article about it linked below. Dr David Anders also speaks about this at length and is easily found in You Tube;

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/morningoffering/2016/07/heresy-penal-substitution/

 

[Michaelangelo]

So you don’t think it’s unjust to punish the innocent?

Where did I say it was ok to punish innocent?

I’m not saying it is unjust for God to punish us for our sins, I’m saying it is unjust to punish the innocent. Christ was innocent, and He wasn’t punished by His own Father as some seem to believe.

In the bible the divine one kills people regardless if they are innocent or not.

Are you saying we will or will not be punished for our sins?

I don’t think there are any divine laws one can violate.

 

[DeSales111]

I think my questions were supposed to be directed to Itwin, my apologies if I hit the reply tab to you, my eyes are terrible and hard to do on a phone sometimes.

 

[DeSales111]

Wrath - 1: strong vengeful anger or indignation. 2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There are a variety of theories of the Atonement. You are free to embrace one that speaks to you, as I don’t think the Catholic Church has taken an official position.
FWIW, many people had the same issue you did with the particular theory you mention.

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

 

[DeSales111]

I can see why the Church has not locked down on one particular theory, it’s almost like in a way there are pieces of all of them that are true. The link to the summary is very nice, always good to get valuable info without having to read volumes.

 

[ltwin]

So you don’t think it’s unjust to punish the innocent?

Yes, it’s unjust to punish the innocent.

Imagine your mother being punished for something someone on the other side of the world did.

What if my mother volunteered to be punished for a crime I committed? That is more relatable to what Jesus did. Our elder brother took our punishment because he loved us.

That’s not justice, that’s revenge.

If my mother died in my place, it would be the supreme act of love.

Would you say those burning down businesses during the riots are justified?

No.

It’s the same concept of “somebody has to pay the price to satisfy the wrath.”

But that’s not what penal substitution says. It’s not just “anybody”. Humans sinned–all of us, but I couldn’t have died for your sins because I have my own to atone for. Jesus could pay the price for all mankind because he is both God and man and was uniquely sinless. The law says a sacrifice has to be without blemish. Therefore, his sacrifice is infinite.

I’m sorry but that is everything Christ was not, and Christ and God are one and the same.

I’m not saying it is unjust for God to punish us for our sins, I’m saying it is unjust to punish the innocent. Christ was innocent, and He wasn’t punished by His own Father as some seem to believe.

Was it not Jesus who said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” Christ laid down his life for us, his friends. It’s even more moving because we didn’t deserve it, but Jesus still did it. To our eyes, there isn’t much justice in that but in God’s eyes “love covers over a multitude of sins.”

Are you saying we will or will not be punished for our sins?

No, we will not if we put our faith in Christ. Romans 8:1 says plainly and clearly: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” No condemnation. We are forgiven.

Why is this possible? Romans 8:3-4 says:

By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Notice what Paul says here. Jesus was sent to us “in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin”. By Christ’s death for sin, God “condemned sin in the flesh.” Because of this, we who “walk according to the Spirit” are able to fulfill the requirements of the law in Christ.

To those who reject Christ, yes they will be punished for their sin because there is no forgiveness of sins outside of Christ.

 

[ltwin]

DeSales111, in our discussion we seem to go back to comparison of God and human justice. Why is it just for God to punish Jesus for someone else’s sin when we would never let someone in a human courtroom be punished for another’s sins. John Piper explains the differences from a penal substitutionary atonement view:

Jesus enters in and he is able to do what no human could do. This is why there is a difference. No human ever could do this in a court of law. He is so perfect and he suffers so much, and his motives are so Godward, that when he dies on the cross, what is manifest is, “Look how valuable the glory of God is!”

If a mom stepped forward in a courtroom and said, “Let me take my son’s place. Let me take my son’s place, please.” We all know that would be unjust. She goes to the electric chair, and this son goes on to sin more.

The two differences are

1. She’s not doing that to magnify the worth of the state—God. She’s doing it to magnify the worth of her son, and that’s not what’s happening at the cross.
2. She’s freeing the son, untransformed, to go into the world and sin some more.

And those are the very two things that are different about the death of Jesus.

1. Jesus dies not to magnify the sinner’s worth, but to magnify God’s worth.
2. And he dies and changes those who escape from hell. He doesn’t just release more sin upon the world. He puts the Holy Spirit in our lives and begins to transform us into the image of Christ so that we bring more glory to the Father than if we had been left in our sin.